Case LawHigh Court › Ita/57/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Ita/57/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd

High Court 24 Jul 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/57/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd
Date of order
24 Jul 2006
Assessment year(s)
1984-85
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/57/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Application No.57 of 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Applicant v/s. M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .. ... Respondents Mr.Shiv Motoria for applicant. Mr.J.D.Mistry for respondents. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 24th July 2006 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Income Tax Tribunal, vide its order dated 1st February 2001, had dismissed the Reference Application made by the petitioner. The reference was sought with respect to the assessment made for the year 1989-90. The Assessing Officer had granted the deduction in favour of the respondent under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is following an earlier decision of the Tribunal in favour of the assesee for the Assessment Year 1984-85. The deduction had been granted to the Bombay Refinery as well as the Vishakapatnam Refinery. The submission of the Revenue is that the Marketing Division would be treated as separately. Section -2- 80-I of the Income Tax Act refers to any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. Manufacturing, processing and the marketing are part of the industrial undertaking. One cannot separate and deny the benefit of deduction to the Marketing Division. There is no question of law involved. Application is rejected. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) (V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan